VZCZCXRO4323
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV
DE RUEHFR #1412/01 2051651
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 231651Z JUL 08
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3890
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC
RUEAUSA/DEPT OF HHS WASHDC
INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2935
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 001412 
 
SIPDIS 
 
BRUSSELS PASS USEU FOR AGMINCOUNSELOR, USTR 
STATE FOR OES; EUR/ERA; EEB/TPP/ABT/BTT (BOBO); 
STATE PASS USTR FOR MURPHY/CLARKSON; 
OCRA/CURTIS; 
STA/JONES/HENNEY/WETZEL/CHESLEY; 
EU POSTS PASS TO AGRICULTURE AND ECON 
GENEVA FOR USTR, ALSO AGRICULTURE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAGR SENV ECON ETRD EU FR
SUBJECT:  GOF CONSULTING ON ANIMAL CLONING 
 
¶1.  Summary and Background: The French Ministry of Agriculture 
(MinAg) is currently holding consultations on animal cloning in 
order to prepare a national regulatory framework on the issue.   The 
MinAg is using the French Advisory Committee on Food (in French, 
"Conseil national de l'Alimentation", or CNA) for these 
consultations.  CNA has formed a working group on animal cloning, 
whose members include representatives of the livestock industry, 
researchers, farmers, the animal genetics industry, consumer groups, 
the agro-food industry, and lawyers.  The working group is 
conducting a number of hearings, and recently requested a 
presentation on the U.S. situation on animal cloning from FAS/Paris. 
 Based on comments of the group, the CNA appears to be leaning 
towards a conclusion that cloning is not a viable option in France 
because of animal welfare concerns, and that any products of cloned 
animals (and very possibly their offspring) would have to be subject 
to rigorous traceability and labeling requirements.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  At this July 10 hearing, Agricultural Minister-Counselor made a 
presentation cleared by an interagency group, in which she provided 
the USG position on animal cloning, a historical background of the 
U.S. food safety review of animal cloning, the current USDA 
transition plan, the U.S. view on labeling,, as well as approaches 
being taken by other countries. 
USTR rep from Brussels also participated in the discussion. 
 
¶3.  One CNA member expressed doubt that cloned and conventional 
animals were equivalent based on a recent study published by the UK 
Food Standards Agency concluding that with animal cloning, there are 
efficiency and animal welfare problems.  He also asserted that there 
had never been as many animal health problems with artificial 
insemination and in vitro fertilization as had been encountered with 
animal cloning.  Further, he noted that extremely rare diseases 
appeared with cloned animals.  Other CNA members supported this 
position.  (Note:  These conclusions appear in the 2005 French Food 
Safety Agency (AFSSA) report released on animal cloning.  End Note.) 
Consequently, the group appeared to have come to the conclusion that 
animal cloning would not be viable in France because of animal 
welfare concerns.  (Note:  France is normally not a strong animal 
welfare advocate given the criticisms aimed at the practice of 
"gavage" or force feeding of fowl destined for the foie gras 
industry.  End note.) 
 
¶4.  CNA working group members insisted that French citizens' 
concerns regarding food are not only a question of food safety, but 
also focus on food production processes.  As a result, it seems very 
likely that they will recommend labeling on food products derived 
from animal clones and progeny.  Also, they disagreed with the U.S. 
assertion that consumer acceptance increases when their education is 
higher on technologies, and cited the example of GMOs. 
 
¶5.  The CNA is expected to release its final recommendation to the 
French Government (GOF) on food products from cloned animals and 
their offspring by next fall.  Also, the European Food Safety Agency 
is expected to release its final report on animal cloning this month 
(July 2008).  The French Presidency of the European Union also 
proposed a meeting of the European expert group on the Novel Food 
Regulation, where animal cloning would be addressed (no date has 
been set yet).  The GOF is expected to establish its own regulatory 
measures on this issue, based on this series of consultations, and 
on the reviews by European authorities, by the end of this year or 
in the first half of 2009. It is not clear yet how the French 
regulation on animal cloning would relate to regulatory decisions 
taken at the European level.  In the absence of an EU regulation, 
Member State regulations prevail.  Even if an EU regulation is 
published first, France could conceivably argue that it needs a 
stricter regulation. 
 
6 The following questions were asked by the CNA working group.  They 
request a response by August 15 in order to be able to complete 
their report: 
- How many cloned animals are there currently in the U.S.?  (what 
are their ages and breeds) 
- What are the economic and technological benefits of animal 
cloning? What characteristics are targeted to be improved? 
- Is semen from cloned animals currently marketed in the U.S.? 
 
¶7. Comment:  Both CNA members and the leading farmers' unions 
(queried separately) emphasized the downside of introducing cloned 
animals into France (i.e. anticipated consumer resistance and 
consequent economic risk).  At the same time, they do not see any 
compelling advantages that would outweigh this risk.  Any further 
 
PARIS 00001412  002 OF 002 
 
 
information on anticipated advantages, particularly for consumers, 
would be useful, as would be exchanges between U.S. and European 
livestock producers.  End comment.